Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Exclusive Networks-PH, Inc.

EN BANC [C.T.A. EB CASE NO. 2536. January 10, 2024.] (C.T.A. Case No. 9689) COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE , petitioner , vs. EXCLUSIVE NETWORKS-PH, INC., formerly TRANSITION SYSTEMS PHILS. PTE. LTD., INC. herein represented by MICHELLE G. MEJIA , respondent . RESOLUTION REYES-FAJARDO , J p : For the Court's resolution is petitioner Commissioner of Internal Revenue (CIR)'s Motion for Reconsideration 1 of the Decision promulgated on July 4, 2023 (Assailed Decision), where the Court upheld the ruling of the Court of Tax Appeals Second Division (Court in Division). Previously, the Court in Division cancelled the CIR's Formal Letter of Demand with Details of Discrepancies Demand No. 43A-B270-13 and Assessment Notices dated January 23, 2017 issued against respondent Exclusive Networks-PH, Inc., 2 representing deficiency income tax and value-added tax for taxable year 2013 after finding that the tax investigation which resulted in the subject Assessment Notices were based merely on a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which was not issued by the CIR or any duly authorized representative; thus, violative of Revenue Memorandum Order Nos. 43-90 3 and 29-07. 4 ATICcS Aggrieved, the CIR filed the instant motion on July 21, 2023, reiterating that it is standard operating procedure thus, acceptable and valid for revenue officers to issue a memorandum to others who will handle the case in place of those designated in the initial letter of authority. 5 What is important is that the audit of the taxpayer has been previously authorized by a letter of authority and that only such taxpayers may be subject to examination by revenue officers. Any revenue officers authorized to examine such taxpayers will always be doing so "pursuant" to a letter of authority. 6 On August 7, 2023, respondent filed an Opposition 7 to the CIR's motion. The instant motion was submitted for resolution on October 13, 2023. After a careful review of the records of the present case, the Court finds no compelling reason to reverse or modify the Assailed Decision. The instant motion raises the same arguments already passed upon and discussed at length by the Court. The CIR has not adduced any substantial argument to warrant reconsideration or modification of the Assailed Decision. It is already settled that if the issues raised in the motion for reconsideration are mere reiterations of those which have already been passed upon and, in fact, adjudged as unmeritorious by the Court, these cannot be regarded as substantial and no longer require another full-blown discussion. Any further discourse will only be unnecessary and repetitive. 8 ETHIDa WHEREFORE , in light of the foregoing considerations, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue's Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision promulgated on July 4, 2023 is DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED. (SGD.) MARIAN IVY F. REYES-FAJARDO Associate Justice Roman G. del Rosario, P.J., Ma. Belen M. Ringpis-Liban, Catherine T. Manahan, Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, Maria Rowena Modesto-San Pedro, Lanee S. Cui-David, Corazon G. Ferrer-Flores and Henry S. Angeles, JJ. , concur. Footnotes 1. Filed on July 21, 2023. Rollo , pp. 86-94. 2. Formerly: Transition Systems Phils. Pte. Ltd., Inc. 3. Amendment of Revenue Memorandum Order No. 37-90 Prescribing Revised Policy Guidelines for Examination of Returns and Issuance of Letters of Authority to Audit , September 20, 1990. 4. Prescribing the Audit Policies, Guidelines and Standards at the Large Taxpayers Service , September 26, 2007. 5. Rollo , p. 89. 6. Rollo , p. 91. 7. Rollo , pp. 96-100. 8. Social Justice Society (SJS) Officers, et al. v. Lim , G.R. Nos. 187836 & 187916, March 10, 2015.